Sarah Sanders denied food

[Soxbadger]

43 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So the person disagrees with you on taking kids from their families and losing them in the system as punishment for requesting asylum in the US. You're ok with that and consider their sincere belief that we need tender age shelters to hold kids pulled from their parents to be just another political disagreement?

Is there a line where you say "no, this isn't ok as a political disagreement anymore"? Or if I pull out the most extreme examples I can from the last year, you're ok with all of them?

 

I never said that it isnt okay to have her opinion. In fact I am most likely by far the most pro-immigration person on this board. That being said, the 1st amendment entitles her to have her opinion. And if I really believe in things like the freedom of speech and "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

But last I checked, Sanders herself is nothing more than a mouthpiece. If a lawyer defends a serial killer, should they be harassed? Its how we treat the worst of the worst that defines us. 

38 minutes ago, BigSqwert said:

This isn't about ideas that people disagree with.  One side is quite literally implementing inhumane practices towards thousands of families.  The UN even stated that this is borderline torture.

 

I know that people dont like this, but both sides did it. And both sides were wrong. 

 

37 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I'm not saying messing with her food is OK. I think it's disgusting and should be considered, if it is not, a crime. But I would bet it's happened. It's happened to a lot of people. Probably most of us at least once. 

Im sure it has. I just dont feel that its a good precedent to set that "its okay to fuck with people because they have different ideas." Because while I may find immigration rules repulsive, someone else may find abortions to be. So if we start going with Balta's logic, then we open the floodgates to other people saying things like "Youre okay with mothers murdering children..."

/shrugs

 

[Balta1701]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

I never said that it isnt okay to have her opinion. In fact I am most likely by far the most pro-immigration person on this board. That being said, the 1st amendment entitles her to have her opinion. And if I really believe in things like the freedom of speech and "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

But last I checked, Sanders herself is nothing more than a mouthpiece. If a lawyer defends a serial killer, should they be harassed? Its how we treat the worst of the worst that defines us. 

No a lawyer who defends a serial killer should not be harassed and that example comes no where close to the kinds of acts we're talking about here.

If a person has declared publicly that they believe you aren't worth as much as them because of your background, are you going to be polite to them and serve them? If your cooks are hispanic immigrants and a member of this administration is at the table, and they have publicly advocated that people like you are dangerous criminals and worth less than them because of your background, should your cooks be forced to serve them? 

Should a jewish cook at a deli be required to seat and serve a person who walks around chanting "Jews will not replace us"?

[Balta1701]

8 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Im sure it has. I just dont feel that its a good precedent to set that "its okay to fuck with people because they have different ideas." Because while I may find immigration rules repulsive, someone else may find abortions to be. So if we start going with Balta's logic, then we open the floodgates to other people saying things like "Youre okay with mothers murdering children..."

I'd like to note that the Supreme Court has in fact knocked down any attempts to bar protests and harassment at abortion clinics.  Hell just today they ruled that it's ok for "Crisis pregnancy centers" to pretend to be licensed medical facilities and the state of California can't require them to note that they're not.

What you just said isn't good precedent to set happens all the time in this country and we're totally ok with that.

[Soxbadger]

28 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

No a lawyer who defends a serial killer should not be harassed and that example comes no where close to the kinds of acts we're talking about here.

If a person has declared publicly that they believe you aren't worth as much as them because of your background, are you going to be polite to them and serve them? If your cooks are hispanic immigrants and a member of this administration is at the table, and they have publicly advocated that people like you are dangerous criminals and worth less than them because of your background, should your cooks be forced to serve them? 

Should a jewish cook at a deli be required to seat and serve a person who walks around chanting "Jews will not replace us"?

Youre moving the goal posts. Sanders has a job. Her job is to be the press secretary for Donald Trump. She wasnt chanting "Jews will not replace us". If she was causing a scene, that is an entirely different argument and has nothing to do with her job.

You act like Ive never dealt with this. I have had clients on the phone say "Can you jew them down." I have had people use slurs whatever. I may not personally like it, but it doesnt get in the way of the job I do. And I had a choice to be in a job where I may have to do things I dislike, I chose it. Same with chefs etc. When you open a place to the public, you know you are serving EVERYONE. And maybe again, im in the minority.

25 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I'd like to note that the Supreme Court has in fact knocked down any attempts to bar protests and harassment at abortion clinics.  Hell just today they ruled that it's ok for "Crisis pregnancy centers" to pretend to be licensed medical facilities and the state of California can't require them to note that they're not.

Not sure how this is relevant.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

3 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Youre moving the goal posts. Sanders has a job. Her job is to be the press secretary for Donald Trump. She wasnt chanting "Jews will not replace us". If she was causing a scene, that is an entirely different argument and has nothing to do with her job.

You act like Ive never dealt with this. I have had clients on the phone say "Can you jew them down." I have had people use slurs whatever. I may not personally like it, but it doesnt get in the way of the job I do. And I had a choice to be in a job where I may have to do things I dislike, I chose it. Same with chefs etc. When you open a place to the public, you know you are serving EVERYONE. And maybe again, im in the minority. But I wouldnt agree with a restaurant who doesnt serve people who play

 

Not sure how this is relevant.

1. You brought up, yourself, "it isn't ok to f*** with people who are having abortions". This country has, for years, deemed the opposite to be true - that if you are a woman going to an abortion clinic, you have the legal right to be f***ed with until you enter the door. They climb fences, they take photographs of people entering, they yell, shout, swear, etc. This country has repeatedly said we're ok with that.  Given that standard, I'd be ok with that same treatment following around every member of this administration. That's what the law has said and that's the example you gave.

2. I haven't moved the goal posts. The top person in this administration, that she chooses to work for, described people chanting "Blood and soil" as "Very fine people". They regularly describe immigrants as "Vermin". If that is just "having different ideas", then you and I have different ideas of what legitimate political discussion should be. If they're willing to cross the lines of decency then people should not have to treat them decently.

[Soxbadger]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

1. You brought up, yourself, "it isn't ok to f*** with people who are having abortions". This country has, for years, deemed the opposite to be true - that if you are a woman going to an abortion clinic, you have the legal right to be f***ed with until you enter the door. They climb fences, they take photographs of people entering, they yell, shout, swear, etc. This country has repeatedly said we're ok with that.  Given that standard, I'd be ok with that same treatment following around every member of this administration. That's what the law has said and that's the example you gave.

2. I haven't moved the goal posts. The top person in this administration, that she chooses to work for, described people chanting "Blood and soil" as "Very fine people". They regularly describe immigrants as "Vermin". If that is just "having different ideas", then you and I have different ideas of what legitimate political discussion should be. If they're willing to cross the lines of decency then people should not have to treat them decently.

1. Im not sure what the relevance of what other people in the country are doing? Are those people me? Just because someone else does something abhorrent does not mean that I am okay with it. Which is the exact reason I brought it up. If I start defending abhorrent actions for my team, then I am defending them for the other team. I like to be as consistent as possible. Again, I dont care what other peoples standards are, I care what mine are. Otherwise why have our own presonal standards.

2. Can you point a time where Sanders was "indecent". Where she did something so terrible personally. Im not saying her supporters. For example, you work for a college, if someone in that facility did something bad, would you just quit your job immediately? Would it be okay if someone from a rival school fucked with your food because "HOOK EM HORNS". 

Like I said, I know I am in the minority. Its really easy to have visceral reactions and want blood for blood. But thats why I support a country that doesnt follow systems like "eye for an eye." And yes that may mean the other side does really terrible horrific things, that I could justify doing back. But to what end, so that I for a moment feel better. That doesnt change shit, and Im sorry, but I actually want to change immigration, I dont just want a bunch of likes for calling the other side bad names.

I know I know, that doesnt appease you.

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Soxbadger said:

1. Im not sure what the relevance of what other people in the country are doing? Are those people me? Just because someone else does something abhorrent does not mean that I am okay with it. Which is the exact reason I brought it up. If I start defending abhorrent actions for my team, then I am defending them for the other team. I like to be as consistent as possible. Again, I dont care what other peoples standards are, I care what mine are. Otherwise why have our own presonal standards.

2. Can you point a time where Sanders was "indecent". Where she did something so terrible personally. Im not saying her supporters. For example, you work for a college, if someone in that facility did something bad, would you just quit your job immediately? Would it be okay if someone from a rival school fucked with your food because "HOOK EM HORNS". 

Like I said, I know I am in the minority. Its really easy to have visceral reactions and want blood for blood. But thats why I support a country that doesnt follow systems like "eye for an eye." And yes that may mean the other side does really terrible horrific things, that I could justify doing back. But to what end, so that I for a moment feel better. That doesnt change shit, and Im sorry, but I actually want to change immigration, I dont just want a bunch of likes for calling the other side bad names.

I know I know, that doesnt appease you.

1. If a restaurant in Austin wanted to make a policy of No Aggies eating there...more power too 'em, I kinda like those rivalries. 

2. Let's just go with yesterday arguing that "“Just because you don’t see a judge doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving due process" as a way to justify the president's support for an illegal policy of kicking people out of the country without any right to a hearing. 

3. One of the lessons of the past few years in my eyes is that allowing these ideas to fester inside the Republican party, that not challenging them, that treating "birtherism" and "white nationalism" and now the "incel" movement, that has allowed them to grow and take over the entire country. We gave those movements space, expecting them to flame out, but with a little support from a foreign country, they exploded, and now supporting prominent neo-nazis is a thing that happens regularly from congresspeople and the President. Treating white nationalism like it was just another political movement, that it was still respectable, helped us get here. 

[Soxbadger]

2. Again, if you look at the other side, people say the same thing about abortion. That those who do it are monsters/murders. Just because people have strong feelings, doesnt mean that people cant have plausible legal arguments.

3. I dont think challenging requires spitting in food. I challenge people all day long about their beliefs. But I try to not resort to breaking the law or doing something I find unacceptable. I dont even find it productive. I dont believe a single person will change their opinion because of what happened to Sanders. In fact I think it "circles the wagons" of those who support the policy, and may even get a few people on the fence to have pity/sympathy.

I guess at the end, the question is, do I think it is likely to make my position win. I dont. So why cross a line when its counterproductive anyway?

I mean I get it, its fun to tear off the jersey from the opposing team and throw it out of the stadium. But did it really impact the game?

[BigSqwert]

[Balta1701]

50 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

2. Again, if you look at the other side, people say the same thing about abortion. That those who do it are monsters/murders. Just because people have strong feelings, doesnt mean that people cant have plausible legal arguments.

3. I dont think challenging requires spitting in food. I challenge people all day long about their beliefs. But I try to not resort to breaking the law or doing something I find unacceptable. I dont even find it productive. I dont believe a single person will change their opinion because of what happened to Sanders. In fact I think it "circles the wagons" of those who support the policy, and may even get a few people on the fence to have pity/sympathy.

I guess at the end, the question is, do I think it is likely to make my position win. I dont. So why cross a line when its counterproductive anyway?

I mean I get it, its fun to tear off the jersey from the opposing team and throw it out of the stadium. But did it really impact the game?

Is it? 

Let's put it this way. When Mitch McConnell first spoke about Donald Trump's proposed ban on Muslims, he stated that it was ""completely inconsistent with American values." He then held open the Senate seat that today allowed it to be upheld. When it was upheld, he shared a picture of him shaking Gorusch's hand. 

Something that 2 years ago was "completely inconsistent with American values" is now something he brags about.

Polite society is losing.

[Soxbadger]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Is it? 

Let's put it this way. When Mitch McConnell first spoke about Donald Trump's proposed ban on Muslims, he stated that it was ""completely inconsistent with American values." He then held open the Senate seat that today allowed it to be upheld. When it was upheld, he shared a picture of him shaking Gorusch's hand. 

Something that 2 years ago was "completely inconsistent with American values" is now something he brags about.

Polite society is losing.

If this Sanders thing results in more people voting against Republican's sure its worth it. I think it will do the opposite. No way to be sure, but if I cant clearly tell its going to help my position, then why not act the way I would like other people to act. 

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Soxbadger said:

If this Sanders thing results in more people voting against Republican's sure its worth it. I think it will do the opposite. No way to be sure, but if I cant clearly tell its going to help my position, then why not act the way I would like other people to act. 

When you take the first punch, and then the second, and then the third, eventually it's you who winds up unconscious.

[Soxbadger]

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

When you take the first punch, and then the second, and then the third, eventually it's you who winds up unconscious.

Im just not that worried. Theyve thrown their best punches and they are still going to lose in the long run. Can only fight the future for so long. 

[southsider2k5]

If the premise is that the Democrats will win by acting more like Trump, I think they have already lost.

[caulfield12]

What have Dems gotten for being more civil over the last 25 years?

Impeachment and the Tea Party/obstructionist movement.

I just don’t understand how hectoring and shouting at women (lots of whom actually have unintentional miscarriages) in their most vulnerable and emotional moments is somehow justified (especially because it’s based on the imposition of the dominant Christian majority will on the rest of the population, and there’s that little thing called separation of church and state)...based on what?  Freedom of speech?   Our president can bully everyone and say hateful things without a single consequence?

Seems like we are opening up a lot of cans of worms, and Soxbadger is sounding like the Charles Schumer wing of the Democratic Party against Balta’s progressive side.

For example...Does that also give women the right to protest churches/individuals who don’t take in all the unwanted children in the US?  Or to protest superchurches (remember the Osteen one in Houston during the flooding) who refuse to help poor or homeless people despite having protected, charitable/tax-deductible status?   Because abortion is more “emotional” or charged than how we treat people who are already living?  Seems dubious to make such distinctions.

[Balta1701]

6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

If the premise is that the Democrats will win by acting more like Trump, I think they have already lost.

If the premise is that we should be ok with what is happening and this is just normal politics, then we have absolutely already lost because Trump's side is not fighting that way. 

[caulfield12]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/26/chasing-white-house-officials-out-of-restaurants-is-the-right-thing-to-do/?utm_term=.b4c3fac8e72c

Chasing WH officials out of restaurants is the right thing to do

[Soxbadger]

6 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

What have Dems gotten for being more civil over the last 25 years?

Impeachment and the Tea Party/obstructionist movement.

I just don’t understand how hectoring and shouting at women (lots of whom actually have unintentional miscarriages) in their most vulnerable and emotional moments is somehow justified (especially because it’s based on the imposition of the dominant Christian majority will on the rest of the population, and there’s that little thing called separation of church and state)...based on what?  Freedom of speech?   Our president can bully everyone and say hateful things without a single consequence?

Seems like we are opening up a lot of cans of worms, and Soxbadger is sounding like the Charles Schumer wing of the Democratic Party against Balta’s progressive side.

For example...Does that also give women the right to protest churches/individuals who don’t take in all the unwanted children in the US?  Or to protest superchurches (remember the Osteen one in Houston during the flooding) who refuse to help poor or homeless people despite having protected, charitable/tax-deductible status?   Because abortion is more “emotional” or charged than how we treat people who are already living?  Seems dubious to make such distinctions.

 

I think youre confusing political beliefs with how I think the best way to make a meaningful change.

People in this thread seem to think that attacking Sanders is going to get Trumpians to change their mind. I just dont see that happening. I think you want to grind them to dust, but you do it behind the scenes. They want big spectacles where they can go out and carry tiki torches or marry their flags. But when they dont have that their interest wanes. 

This is a war of attrition. Trump is losing. Harley Davidson is a body blow. More will follow. But the Sanders thing is a distraction. You get his base riled up, they forget about jobs, they forget about promises, they just blindly follow.

Agree or disagree, but if you want Trump to face consequences, you need to win 2018. If you want to win 2018, you dont rile up his base over a stupid restaurant.

Thats just my opinion, and it has nothing to do with my political beliefs. My opinion on immigration is well known on this board. I just dont think spitting in someones food is the litmus test of how "down I am for the cause."

[Soxbadger]

18 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

If the premise is that the Democrats will win by acting more like Trump, I think they have already lost.

I think the correct phrase is "We have all already lost."

[BigSqwert]

2 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

People in this thread seem to think that attacking Sanders is going to get Trumpians to change their mind.

 

I don't think anyone has made that argument but please correct me if I am wrong.

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, BigSqwert said:

I don't think anyone has made that argument but please correct me if I am wrong.

Then how does this help win an election? Because the premise of the argument is doing this will win the election. So either 1) you think it will get Trump supporters to change or 2) it will get non Trump supporters to vote more.

So which do you think this does?

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

 

I think youre confusing political beliefs with how I think the best way to make a meaningful change.

People in this thread seem to think that attacking Sanders is going to get Trumpians to change their mind. I just dont see that happening. I think you want to grind them to dust, but you do it behind the scenes. They want big spectacles where they can go out and carry tiki torches or marry their flags. But when they dont have that their interest wanes. 

This is a war of attrition. Trump is losing. Harley Davidson is a body blow. More will follow. But the Sanders thing is a distraction. You get his base riled up, they forget about jobs, they forget about promises, they just blindly follow.

Agree or disagree, but if you want Trump to face consequences, you need to win 2018. If you want to win 2018, you dont rile up his base over a stupid restaurant.

Thats just my opinion, and it has nothing to do with my political beliefs. My opinion on immigration is well known on this board. I just dont think spitting in someones food is the litmus test of how "down I am for the cause."

Jesus Christ, you wrote "Harley Davidson taking a few jobs out of the country" is a "body blow" on the day that the Court upheld the Muslim ban thanks entirely to a Supreme Court seat they rewrote all the rules to take, and the day after they approved the racial gerrymanders in Texas and North Carolina that will help them keep the House this fall?

[BigSqwert]

4 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Then how does this help win an election? Because the premise of the argument is doing this will win the election. So either 1) you think it will get Trump supporters to change or 2) it will get non Trump supporters to vote more.

So which do you think this does?

I personally don't even think this line of thinking and action is about votes.  GoSox05 posted this article in another thread that gets to the heart of the matter IMO.  It's a good read even if you may not agree with the content.

 

One snippet:

Quote

This is all going to get more extreme. And it should. We are living in extreme times. The harm that is being done to all of us by the people in the American government is extreme. To imagine that Mexican immigrants should happily cook for and serve meals to people who enable a man who is determined to demonize and persecute them as subhuman criminals is far more outrageous than the idea that those enablers should not be served in restaurants.

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by BigSqwert

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Then how does this help win an election? Because the premise of the argument is doing this will win the election. So either 1) you think it will get Trump supporters to change or 2) it will get non Trump supporters to vote more.

So which do you think this does?

And there it is in a nutshell.  The Trump vote eats this stuff up, and uses it to further the idea that they are just as much of a victim as anyone else.

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Then how does this help win an election? Because the premise of the argument is doing this will win the election. So either 1) you think it will get Trump supporters to change or 2) it will get non Trump supporters to vote more.

So which do you think this does?

I think that we have turned a blind eye to people who should have been disgraced long ago as they kept getting jobs over at Fox News and elsewhere. Legitimate criminals like Oliver North, the architects of the Bush administration's torture policy, outright racists like Pat Buchanan. Polite society has not shunned them even when they ordered despicable acts or committed outright crimes, and the end result has been that they continued working to undermine polite society.

The people who are in this administration should never, ever hold jobs in public service again. They should be working in the mailroom somewhere in South Carolina. They should feel uncomfortable about what they did every single day of their lives.